to do or undo

[Vampyr]

Most of their simplifications improve on the face-to-face game. For example ... claim-protocol...

 

I don't know about other bridge sites, but the BBO practice of playing on after a claim is very, very far from an improvement.

[blackshoe]

I think the first thing the group trying to come up with an online lawbook needs to do is to see if the major sites have any significant differences in the way the software works, and also list the similarities. I think both BBO and OKBridge prevent revokes and calls and plays out of turn for example. If all such sites are going to prevent those three things, then the laws surrounding them can be deleted. If there are differences in something, then the laws need to account for that.

 

If we can get a reasonable set of online rules, then if for example they include not playing on after a claim, folks can feel comfortable in refusing to do so. Eventually the custom of playing on should die out. Of course, if we (I include the folks running the sites in "we") don't want playing on after claims, the software ought to be able to prevent it - and that's another thing the folks writing these laws need to consider - I should think that any law which depends on software modifications would need the concurrence of the sites, or it will be pointless.

[nige1]

I don't know about other bridge sites, but the BBO practice of playing on after a claim is very, very far from an improvement.

If we can get a reasonable set of online rules, then if for example they include not playing on after a claim, folks can feel comfortable in refusing to do so. Eventually the custom of playing on should die out.

The protocol of on-line claims resembles that of rubber-bridge. The rules are simpler and more objective than WBF duplicate laws. The on-line protocol circumvents language difficulties, encourages claims, and results in a game that is fairer, faster and more fun. I hope that a future WBFLC considers the adoption of something similar for face-to-face duplicate bridge.

[Vampyr]

The protocol of on-line claims resembles that of rubber-bridge. The rules are simpler and more objective than WBF duplicate laws. The on-line protocol circumvents language difficulties, encourages claims, and results in a game that is fairer, faster and more fun. I hope that a future WBFLC considers the adoption of something similar for face-to-face duplicate bridge.

 

Nigel, why do you insist on this when you know very well that a refusal of a claim usually renders the problem obvious to declarer?

[nige1]

Nigel, why do you insist on this when you know very well that a refusal of a claim usually renders the problem obvious to declarer?

Groundhog warning! Rubber Bridge players aren't naive. They're aware that a few players do embark on fishing expeditions or are just lazy. Refusal of a claim doesn't signal that the claimer has miscounted or that there are bad breaks. When declarer claims, defenders play on, until they accept that declarer has a simple single-dummy certainty. But since non-claimers play double-dummy, the play is still faster. The result isn't determined by a director's play skills and subjective judgement. It's a "Bridge" result.

[Vampyr]

Refusal of a claim doesn't signal that the claimer has miscounted or that there are bad breaks.

 

Well. YMMV.

[barmar]

If we can get a reasonable set of online rules, then if for example they include not playing on after a claim, folks can feel comfortable in refusing to do so. Eventually the custom of playing on should die out.

What's the alternative in games where there's no director? I think the practice of playing on after a claim is based on the rubber bridge law.

 

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge all assume that the game is supervised by a director, or that a director can be called when necessary. That's not always true in online bridge.

[blackshoe]

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge all assume that the game is supervised by a director, or that a director can be called when necessary. That's not always true in online bridge.

Perhaps then the laws of online bridge should be based on the rubber laws rather than the duplicate laws.

[StevenG]

For most BBO games, the Laws of Kitchen Bridge would be appropriate.

[barmar]

Perhaps then the laws of online bridge should be based on the rubber laws rather than the duplicate laws.

Or they should have two versions, just like the laws for f2f bridge. Or laws that depend on a director could have two versions: one with a TD, one without. In fact, it seems like this would also make sense for the f2f laws -- it would ensure that the parts that aren't dependent on a TD stay in sync (unless they do it intentionally -- IIRC there were a number of years between changing the scoring rules for duplicate and rubber).

[Vampyr]

For most BBO games, the Laws of Kitchen Bridge would be appropriate.

 

The problem would be that there would be as many sets of Laws as there are kitchens.

 

Not that I mean to knock the game! This is what I played for 10 years with my grandparents before I ever played a hand of duplicate!

 

Or they should have two versions, just like the laws for f2f bridge. Or laws that depend on a director could have two versions: one with a TD, one without. In fact, it seems like this would also make sense for the f2f laws -- it would ensure that the parts that aren't dependent on a TD stay in sync

 

If the Laws were better written and more comprehensive you would need a director far less frequently. Last night we played a match held privately, and had a situation with two penalty cards. Law 51A stipulate that in such a case, when both cards could be legally played to a trick, the declarer chooses which one. Our team of two county directors and two club directors did not know what happened to the other card. We had to bother one of the EBU's top directors to find the answer. He was happy to help, but we were lucky to be able to get in touch with him, since there are few others whom we would have taken so comfortably at their word.

[pran]

[...]

Last night we played a match held privately, and had a situation with two penalty cards. Law 51A stipulate that in such a case, when both cards could be legally played to a trick, the declarer chooses which one. Our team of two county directors and two club directors did not know what happened to the other card. We had to bother one of the EBU's top directors to find the answer. He was happy to help, but we were lucky to be able to get in touch with him, since there are few others whom we would have taken so comfortably at their word.

Surprising.

Law 51 isn't that difficult, in fact I have always considered it one of the easiest laws in the book, and even fresh Directors seldom have any problem with it.

 

How detailed do you want it?

 

(The penalty state for cards not explicitly mentioned in Law 51 does not change!)

[barmar]

If the Laws were better written and more comprehensive you would need a director far less frequently.

I don't see how this follows. The director isn't usually required to interpret the Laws, he's needed to apply the Laws in the first place. The example you gave was a case where the director needed to consult a more experienced director, that's a totally different issue -- even if the law had been perfectly written, you still would have needed the first director to apply it. Duplicate bridge doesn't allow players to make their own rulings, even in situations where the Law is easy (although many players do so anyway -- they're violating the Laws when they do it).

[Vampyr]

I don't see how this follows. The director isn't usually required to interpret the Laws, he's needed to apply the Laws in the first place. The example you gave was a case where the director needed to consult a more experienced director, that's a totally different issue -- even if the law had been perfectly written, you still would have needed the first director to apply it. Duplicate bridge doesn't allow players to make their own rulings, even in situations where the Law is easy (although many players do so anyway -- they're violating the Laws when they do it).

 

I agree in general with what you're saying, but it is still the case that simple rulings are dealt with by the players in privately-held matches (here, anyway), even if no one is a director. So we would have handled this ourselves if we had certain what was right. When the top director started to talk about lead restrictions, we told him that we were on top of those, and he was fine with that.

 

I don't see an alternative (or the need for one), and I suppose that technically by the time people reach the finals of the Gold Cup or the NICKO or Crockfords or local or county leagues, they have broken the Laws a fair number of times. Unless it is specifically in EBU regulations or CoC that the director delegates his duties to the players in private matches. This may well be the case.

[blackshoe]

I don't see an alternative (or the need for one), and I suppose that technically by the time people reach the finals of the Gold Cup or the NICKO or Crockfords or local or county leagues, they have broken the Laws a fair number of times. Unless it is specifically in EBU regulations or CoC that the director delegates his duties to the players in private matches. This may well be the case.

My memory, poor though it may be, tells me it's not the case. I'm not sure it's needed. Law 80B2 says, in part, "The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include appointment of the Director. If there is no appointed Director, the players should designate a person to perform his functions". So I think what should be done in matches played privately, absent some other solution in the CoC, is for the players to agree on some one person to act as director for the match. If there's an appointed director, and he's not physically present, he should make himself available by telephone, and he should be the first called if there's a problem.

[Vampyr]

So I think what should be done in matches played privately, absent some other solution in the CoC, is for the players to agree on some one person to act as director for the match.

 

I think can't imagine one team consenting to the appointment of a director from the other team.

[blackshoe]

I think can't imagine one team consenting to the appointment of a director from the other team.

Then the TO needs to find another solution. Or maintain the status quo.

[Vampyr]

Then the TO needs to find another solution. Or maintain the status quo.

The status quo is fine.

[pran]

My memory, poor though it may be, tells me it's not the case. I'm not sure it's needed. Law 80B2 says, in part, "The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include appointment of the Director. If there is no appointed Director, the players should designate a person to perform his functions". So I think what should be done in matches played privately, absent some other solution in the CoC, is for the players to agree on some one person to act as director for the match. If there's an appointed director, and he's not physically present, he should make himself available by telephone, and he should be the first called if there's a problem.

 

I cannot resist quoting from one of the books in my Library. The book is named "Bridge" and was issued in 1907. It is about the game of "bridge" preceding "Auction Bridge".

 

Law 98: A spectator may, by agreement between the players, resolve any question about which doubt arises.

[blackshoe]

I don't recall ever having spectators at any of the privately played matches in which I participated. As I recall it, the one time in three years we needed a ruling, the team captains came to a mutually agreeable one. I have no idea whether it was a legally correct ruling.

[Vampyr]

I don't recall ever having spectators at any of the privately played matches in which I participated. As I recall it, the one time in three years we needed a ruling, the team captains came to a mutually agreeable one. I have no idea whether it was a legally correct ruling.

 

People who host privately-played matches should really have a Lawbook to hand.

[blackshoe]

People who host privately-played matches should really have a Lawbook to hand.

They may have had one, I don't remember.